Resources: Curriculum-Based Measurement at the Secondary-School Level
Thank you for your interest in the use of progress monitoring or Curriculumbased Measurement at the secondary-school level.
Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (RIPM)
The University of Minnesota houses a federally-funded research institute on
progress monitoring. You can link to our website at http://progressmonitoring.org.
An overview of CBM written by Stanley Deno is provided on the website for those not
familiar with curriculum-based measurement or with the differences between curriculumbased measurement and curriculum-based assessment. This website also has a link to the
National Center of Progress Monitoring, a dissemination Center focused on the use of
CBM in grades K-5.
Publications
Below are articles and book chapters on the development of CBM or progress
monitoring procedures for secondary-school students in reading, content-area learning,
and writing. (Please note that this list is not exhaustive. It is only the work we have
conducted here at the University. We hope to have an exhaustive list of published work
on CBM on our Research Institute website in the coming years.) Note that we have
conducted no work here in the area of mathematics; however, Dr. Anne Foegen, at the
Iowa State University, has done much work on the development of CBM measures at the
secondary-school level. You can find her contact information at the RIPM website.
Our most recent work has been in the areas of reading, writing, and science
learning. These papers are under preparation, and are not represented below. I would
like to mention the names of my colleagues who have been involved in that work: Dr.
Teri Wallace (University of Minnesota), Dr. Erica Lembke (University of Missouri), Dr.
Todd Busch (Mankato University), Dr. Jeff Long (University of Minnesota), Heather
Campbell (University of Minnesota), and Renata Ticha (University of Minnesota.)
Generally, the findings of this most recent work, combined with our earlier work, indicate
that:
1. In reading, to predict performance, one can use either a 1-minute oral reading
passage in which the number of words read correctly are counted, or a 3-minute
maze passage in which the number of correct choices are counted. For progress
monitoring, however, only a 3-minute maze passage should be used. Reading
aloud does not produce valid and reliable growth rates, whereas maze does. We
construct our maze procedures from human interest articles that appear in the
newspaper. (We cannot, unfortunately, distribute these passages because we have
permission only to use them for our research purposes.) For a description of how
to construct a maze passage, see Espin and Foegen, 1996.
2. In written expression, the best measure for predicting performance is to have
students write for 7 minutes in response to a narrative prompt, and score the
number of correct minus incorrect word sequences. For progress monitoring,
where data are collected on a weekly basis, a 5-minute sample is probably long
enough. For a description of the type of prompts used and the procedures used for
scoring correct minus incorrect word sequences, see Espin, Skare, Shin, Deno,
Robinson, & Brenner, (2000).
3.
In content-area learning, we have had success using a vocabulary-matching
technique where students have 5 minutes to match terms with definitions. This
measures serves as a good measures for both performance and progress
monitoring. For a description of how to construction vocabulary-matching
probes, see Espin, Busch, Shin, and Krsuchwitz, 2001.
Reading and Content-area Learning
Espin, C.A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of three general outcome measures
for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional
Children, 62, 497-514.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1995). Curriculum-based measures for secondary
students: Utility and task specificity of text-based reading and vocabulary measures for
predicting performance on content-area tasks. Diagnostique, 20,121-142.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993). Content-specific and general reading
disabilities of secondary-level students: Identification and educational relevance.
Journal of Special Education 27, 321-337.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993). Performance in reading from content-area text
as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education 14 (6), 47-59.
Content-area Learning
Espin, C.A., Shin, J., & Busch, T.W. (in press). Curriculum-based measurement
in the content areas: Vocabulary-matching as an indicator of social studies learning.
Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Espin, C.A., Busch, T., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. (2001). Curriculum-based
measures in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching measures as indicators of
performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 142-151.
Busch, T. & Espin, C.A. (2003). Using curriculum-based measurement to prevent
failure and assess learning in content areas. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28,
49-58.
Writing
Espin, C.A., De La Paz, S., Scierka, B.J., & Roelofs, L. (in press). Relation
between curriculum-based measures in written expression and quality and completeness
of expository writing for middle-school students. Journal of Special Education.
Espin, C.A., Weissenburger, J.W., & Benson, B.J. (in press). Assessing the
writing performance of students in special education. Exceptionality.
Espin, C.A., Skare, S., Shin, J., Deno, S.L., Robinson, S. & Brenner, B. (2000).
Identifying indicators of growth in written expression for middle-school students.
Journal of Special Education, 34, 140-153.
Espin, C.A., Scierka, B.J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999). Criterion-related
validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary students. Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 15, 5-27.
General articles on CBM and progress monitoring
Deno, S.L., Espin, C.A., & Fuchs, L.S. (2002). Evaluation strategies for
preventing and remediating basic skill deficits. In Stoner, G., Shinn, M.R., & Walker,
H.M. (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems, Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Deno, S.L., & Espin, C.A. (1994). Curriculum-based assessment. International
Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative.
Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement
systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 19 (8), 1- 15.
Espin, C.A., & Tindal, G. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary
students. In Shinn, M.R. (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement.
New York: Guilford Publications.
Espin, C.A., Shin, J., & Busch, T. (2000). Focusing on formative evaluation.
Current Practice Alerts, 1 (3), 1-4.
Fuchs, L.S. & Deno, S.L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between
instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children 57, 488-499.
Fuchs, L.S. & Deno, S.L. (1994) Must instructionally useful performance
assessment be based in the curriculum? Exceptional Children, 61(1), 15-24.